Standing Committee B

[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]

European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill

Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Benton.

Joe Benton: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman's point of order relate to the programme motion?

Teddy Taylor: No.

Joe Benton: Will the hon. Gentleman bear with me until we get the programme motion out of the way? I am quite prepared to accept his point of order then.

Christopher Leslie: I beg to move,
 That—
 (1) during proceedings on the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill, the Standing Committee, in addition to its first sitting on Tuesday 28th October 2003 at 9.30 a.m., do meet—
(a) on that day at 2.30 p.m.; and
(b) on Thursday, 30th October 2003 at 9.30 a.m. and 2.15 p.m.;
 (2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order, namely Clauses 1 to 8, the Schedule, Clauses 9 to 13, New Clauses and New Schedules, and remaining proceedings on the Bill;
 (3) the proceedings, so far as not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 4.45 p.m. on Thursday 30th October 2003.
 On behalf of the Government, I welcome the Committee. We discussed the Bill on Second Reading relatively recently. As hon. Members will know, it is relatively short compared with other legislation, having 13 clauses in total. The Programming Sub-Committee met yesterday to discuss a likely timetable, and the agreement was to have two sittings today and two on Thursday.

David Wilshire: The Minister uses the word ''agreement'', but does he accept that it was not an agreement? There was a majority vote by the Labour party to force that timetable through.

Christopher Leslie: As Conservative Members know about votes and counts, they will also know that a majority is a majority; we shall see whether they appreciate that point later in the week. Ample time has been allocated to consideration of this Bill, and in saying that I pay advance tribute to you, Mr. Benton. With your skill and dedication, I am sure that you will be able to see us through the myriad clauses and amendments in ample time and according to the provisions in the Programming Sub-Committee motion. I hope that the Committee will support that motion.

Nick Hawkins: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Benton. I also welcome all members of the Committee and offer an advance welcome to your co-Chairman, Mr. Frank Cook, whom we will see later today.
 As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) pointed out, there was a vote—indeed, there were two votes—in the Programming Sub-Committee yesterday, and a decision was reached based on the fact that Labour members of the Programming Sub-Committee voted in favour of the programme. The Opposition voted against it, but there is a new factor that I discovered only this morning. When I went to the Members' Post Office at about quarter to 9 this morning to collect my post, I found an enormous pile of documents relating to the Bill and the Committee, which had been sent to everyone by the Electoral Commission. It may be that other Members have yet to have the good fortune to go to the Post Office, so they will not realise that those documents have been sent to everyone. In addition, there is a slightly smaller, but nevertheless significant, bundle from the Electoral Reform Society. 
 I want to make several points that are relevant to the programme motion. There used to be a convention in this House—no doubt you, Mr. Benton, or through you your Clerk, will advise us on this matter—that when a Bill went into Committee, a complete parliamentary week was provided after the week in which Second Reading took place, and Committee proceedings did not start until the following week. The reason why was fairly obvious. Organisations outside the House, such as the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Reform Society, that wished to inform members of the Committee about important points for debate would need such a length of time—a clear week between the week in which Second Reading took place, and the week in which Committee proceedings started—to get the information to all Members, and to ensure that they had time to digest it and to take further advice. Unfortunately, the Government have started to ignore that convention. This is the first Bill with which I have dealt that has had such a short time scale. 
 The Conservative party voted against carry-over, but despite that fact, the Government secured it as a safety net. They are absolutely desperate—I do not use the word lightly—to rush the Bill through with what I can only describe as indecent haste, before the Queen's Speech for the new Session. There will probably not be enough time to ram the Bill through the other place, in the way that they are ramming it through here. None of us will have had time to read the huge pile of documents to which I referred—never mind to digest them properly—or to ask the Electoral Commission about them before today's two sittings, which account for half of the sittings. Had members of the Committee known about the documents, we might have approached the Programming Sub-Committee, which met last night in front of Mr. Cook, in a completely different way. 
 I do not blame the Electoral Commission—on which I shall have some comments to make when we have a substantive debate on it and its work—for the fact that we had no warning of the documents. The covering letter is dated 27 October, and because Second Reading took place only last Tuesday, the commission has obviously had little time to put together the information. In fact, the commission has done well to make this morning's post, and the same point applies to the Electoral Reform Society. 
 It is wholly unsatisfactory to be faced with material, on major legislation that will affect next year's elections and perhaps future ones, that none of us will have time to look at. I would certainly have spoken at length during last night's Programming Sub-Committee, had I known that the information was on its way. I would have said that four sittings are wholly inadequate, and that we ought to go into a further week. Actually, there is no reason why we should not do so. The Government would still be able to get the legislation through Committee and back to the House for Report and Third Reading, before the House rises. They have their carry-over, despite our opposition, so they could take further time to get the legislation through another place. The Government's final deadline is December because they want the Bill on the statute book in order to put in place the plans for next year's European elections.

Peter Duncan: Has my hon. Friend had a chance to consider the correlation between people's understandable cynicism about the Government and the process of deciding on legislation, and this guillotine motion? Are we not discussing the very problem that the Bill is purportedly meant to resolve?

Nick Hawkins: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. If the electorate are to understand what is being proposed for elections, and to have faith in the Government's proposals and what the House decides, they ought to be made aware of whether MPs—Front Benchers or Back Benchers, from whichever party—have had a proper chance to digest all the information. This material weighs a ton. [Interruption.]

Christopher Leslie: My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) comments from a sedentary position on the stage-effect of a few small pamphlets falling on to a wooden table. The documents in front of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) are Electoral Commission reports that have been in the public domain for some time. They are not particularly voluminous—in fact, it is not a particularly burdensome pile of paperwork. If he looked through it, I am sure that he would manage to polish it off in a short time.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister says ''a short time''. Before the sitting began, the time available to me—however fast I may try to read—was from 8.45, when I opened my post, until now. Indeed, many members of the Committee may not even have had the chance to open this morning's post. The Committee will begin
 discussing the Bill as soon as we finish debating the programme motion. That shows, even if some of the documents have been in the public domain, that the Government's haste is indecent, and that this is not the proper way to conduct parliamentary proceedings.

David Heath: It may not be over-burdensome for the hon. Gentleman to read the documents, although I question that notion, but those of us who have yet to receive them have to read them over his shoulder from the far end of the Bench. That is quite a difficult feat.

Nick Hawkins: I agree entirely. The people who make up the Electoral Commission will, I am sure, read the Hansard account of this debate with great interest. They will be pretty angry at the way in which Parliament is being asked to rush the Bill through with indecent haste, without any member of the Committee's having had the chance to read the documents that the commission and the Electoral Reform Society have provided for us. That is simply not an appropriate way to carry on. Had I known that the documentation was coming, I would have spoken about it last night, but it arrived only this morning. It would have completely changed the nature of the Programming Sub-Committee debate.
 My party has always opposed guillotines, but what has happened this morning gives us a much stronger reason for saying that this programme is unsatisfactory, and that there should be debates for a further week.

Lindsay Hoyle: There would be a lot more sympathy from our party if there were less synthetic anger from Opposition Members, and more genuine belief in what they were saying. We all recognise that the hon. Gentleman came into this Room with fixed views, no matter what document came through the post; that was never going to change anyone's mind. With fewer amateur dramatics and more seriousness in the debate, we might be able to get on.

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman knows me very well, and I can honestly tell him that none of this anger is synthetic. There may have been such occasions in the past, but the hon. Gentleman is a past master at participating in them as well. If he wants to talk about amateur dramatics, his last-minute appearance at the Whip's behest to prolong last week's debate on Second Reading was certainly such an instance, given that he had not heard any of the earlier debate.

Lindsay Hoyle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins: In a moment. It is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman, of all people, to talk about amateur dramatics and synthetic approaches, after his performance in the Chamber last week. I can honestly tell him that Opposition Members are genuinely concerned and genuinely angry. The concern that we always have about the Government rushing such matters through has been reinforced by our not having
 the opportunity to look at detailed papers, which arrived only this morning, from the very body that the Government set up to advise us.

Lindsay Hoyle: I expect the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his comment. Had he been awake and looked around the Chamber, he would have known that I intervened earlier in that debate. I am sorry that he missed that—perhaps he requires a visit to an optician. We should remember that some of us are genuine, in terms of the constituents whom we represent, and do not need to run round the country for a new constituency. I hope that he will withdraw his remarks.

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman's belated appearance in the Chamber was noted on both sides. I recognise that he may have made a brief intervention earlier, but we all saw the manoeuvrings that went on. He did not rise to catch the Deputy Speaker's eye until the last minute, after everyone else had spoken. He needs to understand that our anger is genuine.
 I have made all the arguments that I want to make. This is a deeply unsatisfactory way to conduct our business, and the Electoral Commission will share my concern when it reads Hansard.

David Heath: May I first correct the oversight in my earlier intervention and welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Benton? I also welcome other members of the Committee to this Bill, which brings us into double figures in terms of Bills in this Session from the Home Office and the Department for Constitutional Affairs. Some of us have served on an inordinate number of Standing Committees, so we are very familiar with this Committee Room and with other Rooms on this Corridor.
 I shall not speak at length or repeat arguments that have already been made. This is an opposed Bill about which we have grave reservations. It is important, because it affects this country's democratic systems and the way in which we conduct our electoral system. It requires public scrutiny, and the programme motion is opposed because it does not give us the opportunity to consider the Bill with proper care. The point that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath made about the Electoral Commission material was well founded. I have yet to receive those documents, and I suspect that the majority of members of the Committee have yet to receive them, simply because our offices are in far-flung parts of the parliamentary estate and the post does not reach them at this time of the morning.

David Wilshire: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the argument whereby some of the documents received have been in the public domain for some time is totally spurious? If every Member were to read every document published on the off chance that, in a year's time, we will be on a Standing Committee relating to the subject in question, we would do nothing but read documents.

David Heath: That is true up to a point, but it is reasonable to expect Members to prepare for a Standing Committee on which they serve when documents have been made public. I am worried, because without sight of the documents I have no idea whether there is any new material from the Electoral Commission. If there is, then I take the matter very seriously, because the Bill is based on the commission's recommendations.
 The commission is not a pressure group or a body of individuals trying to affect the conduct of our proceedings. It is a statutory body, and Parliament seeks its advice and recognises its expertise. If we were to proceed without having a chance to scrutinise the advice that it has provided, the role of the Committee and of Parliament in scrutinising the Government's proposals would be seriously undervalued.

Nick Hawkins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that the Electoral Reform Society's response to last week's debate, which is undoubtedly new material, was not seen by any of us until this morning, and then by only one or two Members because it only arrived in today's post, is a matter of almost equal concern?
 The Electoral Reform Society's document is not as bulky as that of the Electoral Commission—the hon. Gentleman's point about the commission has particular cause—but it is important to note that the submission of such a crucial, independent and respected a body as the Electoral Reform Society, which clearly contains new material because it is based on its response to Second Reading, did not come in until this morning.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman underlines the point that it is necessary to have a reasonable interval between Second Reading and the Committee stage, just as it is necessary to have a reasonable period between the Committee stage and Report, in order to ensure that Members who wish to contribute are properly informed and can make a reasoned contribution.
 For those reasons, I am extremely concerned that the Government have chosen to rush the Bill through. I want to ensure that we at least use the time that is currently allocated to debate the important provisions, so I do not intend to prolong the discussion.

John Robertson: I welcome you to the chair, Mr. Benton. It is the second time that I have had the pleasure of serving under your chairmanship, and I am sure that this time will be equally enjoyable.
 It is also the second or third time that I have been in Committee with the hon. Members for Surrey Heath and for Spelthorne. Both are doughty fighters and are well known for making a very good argument, although it seems to be the same argument every time we sit.

David Wilshire: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that consistency is a great virtue?

Christopher Leslie: It was Emerson who said that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for that line.

Nick Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Robertson: Can I answer the hon. Member for Spelthorne first? The hon. Gentleman is consistent, and Government Members hope that he will remain so, because he will then always be in opposition. If he and his party continue as they are, they will be filling the Opposition Benches for a long time yet.

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne and me, and I thank him for that and reciprocate the sentiment. He will recognise that one thing is different from the debates on programme motions that my hon. Friend and I have raised during previous Committees on which we have both served. There has never before been such a squeeze in time: Second Reading on a Tuesday with the Government attempting to start the Committee stage the following Tuesday. We have always had all the material from outside bodies and lobbying organisations in plenty of time for us all to read it. The new point we are making explains what has changed between the Programming Sub-Committee last night and today. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that?

John Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I can honestly say that documentation and inputs from various bodies come in regularly during proceedings on every Bill. Unfortunately, sometimes they come in after certain elements have been discussed. Along with the hon. Gentleman, I sat on the Committee debating the Communications Bill, so he will know that some of the information came in late. That was not the fault of the Government. His opposition to the programme motion is a bit spurious.

Mark Lazarowicz: Does my hon. Friend agree that the opposition to the programme motion can be revealed to be even more spurious? We have discovered from an intervention that the documentation from the Electoral Commission apparently relates to information that has been in the public domain for up to a year.

John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for that. I was coming to that point. I have a filing cabinet in my constituency that is full of documentation from the Electoral Commission. I am sure that the documentation, although very interesting and important, would not add a lot to the discussion today.
 I should like to put the record straight by speaking up for my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley, who made an excellent contribution on Second Reading. I did not realise Chorley was that informative, and I was very interested to hear of the trials that took place. He spoke at length about the first trial, and I would tempt 
 him to speak about the second trial, on which he was cut short through lack of time. Those trials have already taken place. 
 We have heard such arguments before. Information has come in from various bodies during the proceedings on every Bill I can think of. I am sure that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath put forward a very similar argument during the debate on the Proceeds of Crime Bill. I could be wrong; I am quite happy to examine the record, and if I am wrong I apologise to him in advance. 
 I speak for Scotland on this issue, and I know that I have sentimental support from the SNP member of the Committee, the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart). The Bill is very important to Scotland. He and I, probably for the first time in Parliament, will be speaking together on this Bill. We want to get on with it; we do not like having these arguments about programme motions all the time.

Mark Lazarowicz: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is possible that the Conservatives' opposition to the programme motion hides a wish to have the matter talked out so that Scotland, like the rest of the UK, has no opportunity to vote by post in the important elections next year?

John Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It has been argued that it would suit poorly supported parties, such as the Conservatives, for there to be low turnouts in the election in order to produce an iffy result. We want to ensure that everyone is enfranchised, and if postal or electronic ballots are the way forward, that is the way we should go. That is what we shall discuss during the debate.
 I have spoken a lot longer than I anticipated, thanks to hon. Members' interventions. I reject the Conservatives arguments about the programme motion. It is time that we got on with the proper debate. We have heard all the arguments many times before. The hon. Member for Spelthorne is right to say that the Opposition are consistent. They are consistently annoying in opposing programme motions without giving any care or thought to the subject being discussed at the time.

David Wilshire: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Benton. I look forward to serving with you. I also welcome some of my sparring partners from previous occasions. I assure them that I shall not disappoint them. I shall say things this morning that I have said before, and I make no apology for that.
 One of the arguments used by people who abuse democracy is, ''Oh well, we have had this argument before, we have abused democracy in the past by having guillotine motions. Now you have spoken your opposition to that, just shut up and let us get on with it.'' A guillotine motion was passed on the Floor of the House, we were not given the opportunity to debate it and we have the opportunity now to talk about what is being done in the Labour Government's name, so I am afraid that I make no apology for saying, as I have before, that this is yet another example of the Government's total disregard for democracy. The 
 motion was rammed through on the Floor of the House with no discussion, so the public were not aware of what was going on. 
 What is the motion all about? It is about one simple thing: the Government could not care less about the details of the Bill. It does not matter to them what issues may crop up during the next four sittings. All that they want is to get the legislation though in their timetable.

Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that if we rush the Bill through it could cost an awful lot of money? Has he seen in the Electoral Commission's review—I have read all the papers, which I received this morning—the astonishing statement that e-mail costs will be £20 for every vote cast? If we add that up for the whole country, the extra £20 for every vote cast by e-mail will involve an awful lot of money at a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is borrowing so much that it is becoming frightening.

David Wilshire: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am full of admiration for anyone who can get up early enough to read through that amount of paper before coming to the sitting. I shall look to my hon. Friend to keep me well briefed on anything that I have yet to read.

Lindsay Hoyle: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) should be on the Front Bench, if he can read the papers so quickly?

David Wilshire: It is one of the great surprises of my life that I find myself in the Opposition Whips Office. That may have been an attempt to shut me up, but it does not appear to have done so.
 We are again dealing with the trampling on democracy of a Government who are determined to have their way, irrespective. It may be perfectly possible for us to deal with this Bill in one sitting, I do not know, but it might need 10 sittings. We will not know that until we get to the middle. The Government could not care less about the real issues that crop up, as long as it suits their timetable. 
 On this occasion, things are worse. Normally, it is the convention of the House that Committees meet at 8.55 am, but oh no, the Government have come along with a motion that says that we shall meet at 9.30 am. That reduces our sittings by an hour and 10 minutes compared with what we might normally expect. They compound the felony of trampling all over democracy by taking away another hour. The motion downstairs said that our consideration had to be completed by 30 October. We were not consulted on that; we were told when it was going to finish. That is not now good enough, and it must finish at a quarter to 5 on 30 October. What about the other hours up to midnight when we could have considered the Bill? It does not suit the Government's purpose either to respect democracy or to work hard and to sit for the length of time needed if they really want proper scrutiny of the Bill. 
 I am delighted that Labour Members are prepared to join in the debate. It makes it much more fun when there is an exchange of views. I went through 39 sittings on the Proceeds of Crime Bill, with a load of people sitting on the Labour Benches full of admiration for the points that we made and hoping beyond hope that we did not carry on in that way. 
 The hon. Member for Chorley made an interesting point when he asked whether any argument that was put would have changed my mind? I ask him the same question. Did he come to this Committee prepared to listen to our arguments and perhaps even, in the Division that is coming, to vote with us, or was his mind closed as well?

Lindsay Hoyle: As well? Ah!

David Wilshire: Yes, I am prepared to admit that my mind is closed when a Government ask me to join in the abuse of democracy. I am not prepared in any circumstances to accept that democracy can be treated in that way. If that means that I have a closed mind, I plead guilty. I do not mind. I am not prepared to be dictatorial or to behave in the same way as this squalid Government, who could not care less about the House.
 The argument is not a spurious one, and no one needs to apologise for it. 
 It being half an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, The Chairman put the Question, pursuant to paragraph (9) of the Order of the House of 28 June 2001 relating to Programming Sub-Committees. 
 The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 8.

The Chairman: As this decision should not be taken except by majority, I am voting no. It might be appropriate to call a temporary suspension to allow the Whips to get together for 10 minutes.
Question accordingly negatived. 
 Sitting suspended. 
 On resuming—

Joe Benton: I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution with the Bill, of which there are copies in the Room. I also remind hon. Members that adequate notice of amendments should be given.
 Generally, my fellow Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any that may be reached in an afternoon sitting.

Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Benton. I do not want to detain the Committee after all the problems that we have had, but I seek guidance on whether it is right for the Minister to state in the explanatory notes that the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights despite the fact that article 3 of protocol 1 of the convention entitled, ''Right to free elections'' makes it clear that any electoral system that undermines the secrecy of the ballot would be in conflict with the protocol. The Minister appears to accept that that is a problem because he states in paragraph 26 of the explanatory notes that
''the piloting scheme addresses the issue of secrecy with a number of safeguards, both statutory and non-statutory.'' 
Having carefully read the Bill several times, I cannot see any provision that requires pilot schemes to ensure that the secrecy of the ballot is guaranteed in any new voting procedures. There is provision in clause 4 for the Electoral Commission to express views on electoral offences and malpractices, but that will not happen until after the elections. 
 My simple question, Mr. Benton, is whether you can require the Minister to alter the explanatory notes after Committee stage if the secrecy of voting is not guaranteed. If the point is not accurate, it should not be printed. I am sorry to trouble the Committee with that, but it is an important issue. I hope that Ministers will think about it.

Nick Hawkins: Further to that point of order, Mr. Benton. I want to associate the Opposition's Front-Bench spokesmen with the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East. We agree entirely with his concerns and, like him, we shall be very interested in your ruling on this important matter.

Joe Benton: I cannot agree to the request made in the point of order. The Minister is responsible for his statement about compatibility with the European convention on human rights, so I regret to tell hon. Members that this is not a matter for me.

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Benton. As I understand the Standing Orders of the House, after the Government's defeat 20 minutes ago—and we should be clear about the fact that it was a defeat for them—it rests with the Chair to suspend the Committee again should there be any further argument on these matters. I hope that the Government will accept their defeat with good grace. Should they attempt again to flout democracy by overturning the Committee's decision, I hope that you will take into account my view that there should be unanimous consent among all the political parties represented on the Committee for anything else that might be proposed. I hope that we shall not allow the Labour Government to steamroller through another abuse of democracy.

Joe Benton: I do not consider that to be a point of order. Furthermore, it would be a mistake for any Chairman to try to anticipate what might happen in a Committee.Clause 1 Piloting conduct at European and local elections

Clause 1 - Piloting conduct at European and local elections

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in
clause 1, page 1, line 4, after 'must', insert
', if a two-thirds majority of the local authorities in the area covered by the pilot agree,'.

Joe Benton: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 18, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert 
 'and all the local authorities in the area covered by the pilot, and unless both Houses of Parliament have had an opportunity to consider the views of those bodies and to debate the matter.'.

Nick Hawkins: We have had an extraordinary start to the morning, with the first Government defeat that I have been involved in since the 2001 election. We look forward to many more, not only in this Committee but on future occasions.
 As I said on Second Reading last Tuesday, Conservative Members feel strongly that all local authorities should be willing participants in experiments of this kind. There are already huge burdens on local authorities, and many of them have been imposed since May 1997 by the Labour Government. In elections, the returning officer—usually, in my experience, the chief executive of the relevant local authority—has many responsibilities already. However, the burdens on chief executives do not come from elections alone. 
 Perhaps many other local authorities are making the same complaint that is among those I receive from all the senior officers in the two local authorities in my constituency—I have certainly heard the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) making similar points in other debates. The complaint is that, since 1997, the Government have loaded greater statutory obligations and burdens on to local authorities, but crucially without providing the funding necessary to enable them to carry out those obligations. The pattern is a common one. A Minister—this or another Minister—will stand up in the House and trumpet a great announcement that the Government are doing something. However, they are putting the burden on local authorities to do that something without providing the funding. 
 Our constituents often protest about the increases in council tax. It is easy for Ministers to try to blame local authorities for that, as they regularly do, and make threatening noises about capping. Indeed, I heard Ministers do that in the Chamber only yesterday. However, the Government are the real culprit; they are putting the burdens on local authorities without providing the necessary funding—and the local authorities have no choice but to obey the statute law imposed on them by the Government. 
 Councillors generally, but especially the senior councillors in my constituency, regularly raise this matter—and not only councillors of my party but councillors of all parties. They are concerned at the huge burdens being placed on them.

Lindsay Hoyle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins: I shall give way in a moment.
 I do not blame Ministers at the Department for Constitutional Affairs alone, but they have to answer for what the Government have done in the past and propose doing again. Amendment No. 18 would take further the precautions that we seek to introduce—that the matter should be debated on the Floor of both Houses before the pilot proposals are pushed through; and, before that, that the local authorities affected should have had the opportunity to debate the matter, and that the local authorities and the Electoral Commission should report to Parliament. 
 Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, I remember what he said repeatedly on Second Reading. I commented then that he had managed to mention his constituency more often in one speech than any other hon. Member I have ever heard. Either in his intervention or in future contributions, I know that he will say that the local authority in his constituency of Chorley is violently in favour of the Government's proposals. However, all local authorities should be consulted, and some may not share the views that he has passed on from Chorley. It is therefore crucial to build in our suggested safeguards.

Lindsay Hoyle: One of the hon. Gentleman's earlier points should be corrected. He said that the present Government were putting more of a burden on local authorities, but he ought to remember that that was also happening before 1997. He should recognise that we have seen a huge increase in rate support grant and he should give some credit to the Government for that.

Nick Hawkins: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has discovered that his local authority has benefited from a huge increase in what used to be called rate support grant. In my constituency, Government funding went up by less than the cost of the national insurance increase. I have recorded my concerns about that on a number of occasions. Funding for local authorities in the south-east, and perhaps some in the south-west, was cut so that the Government could help their friends in the north—doubtless including those in the constituency of the hon. Member for Chorley. I have no doubt at all that, in the Labour heartlands, the amount of Government support went up hugely. However, it did not go up in the south-east, despite the fact that the cost of living and of providing local authority services is much higher in the south-east. The balance was deliberately skewed.

Peter Duncan: Surely the key point is one of compulsion. On Second Reading, we listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Chorley telling us of his town's vast experience of pilot schemes.
 However, there was no compulsion. We are now talking about compulsion, and that element justifies seeking the agreement of local authorities before they are forced to participate.

Nick Hawkins: My hon. Friend is right. He reinforces my point about the element of compulsion. My hon. Friend and others, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), said on Second Reading that one of the ironies of what the Government propose is that some of the authorities that have been pleased to volunteer for the pilot schemes—perhaps including Chorley—may find that, if the Bill stays more or less in its present form, and however much they have enjoyed pilots in the past and want to participate in them, they will not be allowed to do so unless they fall within one of the regions that is subsequently chosen.
 The point of our amendments is that it is crucial that every affected local authority should have the chance to be consulted and to report its views, so that Parliament can debate the matter. That argument is much the same as those that we had in the Programming Sub-Committee before the Government suffered their catastrophic defeat. We have not had the chance to look at the information from the Electoral Commission, and if Parliament does not have the chance to consider the responses of local authorities, it cannot make proper decisions.

Mark Lazarowicz: I would also like to express my pleasure at serving under your chairmanship, Mr. Benton.
 Would the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a contradiction in what he says? He claims that he is against compulsion, yet amendment No. 16 provides that if two thirds of local authorities in an area agree, there will be compulsion on the other local authorities. That would mean, for example, that the authorities in cities such as Edinburgh and Glasgow and other large authorities in Scotland could be outvoted by the tiny authority represented by the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan). Is that the compulsion that the amendment advocates?

Nick Hawkins: May I first correct the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz)? The constituency and local authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale can hardly be described as tiny. I know the area well and, as well as being one of the most beautiful parts of the United Kingdom, it is large. I anticipated that if we had required all local authorities to approve the proposal, the Minister would have pointed out that it would take only one totally maverick authority to block the whole process. That is why I specified not all local authorities but two thirds. If more than a third of local authorities oppose something, that can hardly be described as a maverick decision.

Mark Lazarowicz: I accept the hon. Gentleman's censure. My description of the constituency of the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale as small
 was incorrect. I have climbed the Merrick in that constituency and seen the constituency from a height, so I can confirm that it is large. However, the hon. Gentleman has not answered my concern. It would still be possible for two thirds of local authorities—perhaps those representing small populations—to outvote those with much larger populations. Is that not unfair on the more populous authorities?

Nick Hawkins: No, I do not think that it is. If we are considering a position—[Interruption.]

Joe Benton: Order. The level of the background noise is becoming a bit high. It is difficult to hear the hon. Gentleman.

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful, Mr. Benton. I apologise to you and the Committee for the fact that I am suffering from a cold, so I might not be speaking at my normal volume. I shall try to ensure that the Committee can hear me.
 At this early stage—it is relevant to amendments Nos. 16 and 18—I should express some of the reservations that we have had ever since we debated what became the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which led to the creation of the Electoral Commission. One of the difficulties about a bureaucracy such as the Electoral Commission—I have no criticism of its individual members—is that it constantly recommends new things and changes. It is in the nature of such bodies to create work—it is a political Parkinson's law. They always generate huge reports. We do not believe, as I have said to the Minister on previous occasions, in their so-called modernisation. We do not believe that it is right to have constant change to, and messing about with, our constitutional settlement, which has been hallowed by time and which has survived so long because it works. As I said on Second Reading, I have always been a believer in the saying, ''If it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.'' Indeed, I would go further and say, ''If it is not essential to change, it is essential not to change.'' 
 On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) said that there will not be a lot wrong with the system when it is has been made easier for those who wish to vote by post to do so. We will come back to that at a later stage, so I will not detain the Committee with the details now. One could say that most of the difficulties that voters have experienced in the past have been dealt with. My attitude, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster, can be summed up by the phrase, ''If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.'' 
 My worry about the Electoral Commission is that it is always recommending change and further change. That is in its nature. One reason why we want to introduce precautions at every stage of the Bill, as we do with amendments Nos. 16 and 18, is so that if local authorities were to say, ''We don't like this, we don't want to have these changes,'' Parliament could take their views into account. Perhaps common sense would then prevail and some of the nonsensical 
 changes that we will later debate would be stopped because it would be clear to Parliament that local authorities did not want them.

Peter Duncan: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Does he agree that the continual changes that have been brought into the electoral process make it all the more important to ask local authorities, which are all too often charged with implementing the revised procedures that we introduce at regular stages—this strikes me as being a particularly important stage—for a reality check? We should ask them whether the proposals are implementable, and to outline the problems. We could then learn from their responses. Surely that is a key part of the process.

Nick Hawkins: Absolutely. That is why amendment No. 18 proposes that
''all the local authorities in the area covered by the pilot'' 
should be consulted. That is also why amendment No. 16 proposes to add the words 
''if a two-thirds majority of the local authorities in the area covered by the pilot agree''. 
All local authorities should report back to the House, and two thirds of authorities should have to agree to the changes. That would at least prevent a maverick local authority from blocking the changes, and would allow the Government to go ahead if a clear majority of authorities were in favour. The Government should not be able to go ahead unless both Houses of Parliament have had the opportunity to consider the views of local authorities and the commission, and to debate the matter.

Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman said, ''If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' I suggest that something is definitely broken, because fewer than 25 per cent. of people vote in European elections. I am interested in the ''two-thirds majority'' mentioned in the amendment. On what basis did he come up with that figure? Why not three quarters or nine tenths of local authorities, or why not one or two of them? He has not properly addressed the issue of population, which was rightly raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith. A relevant threshold of local authorities, and people in those authorities, should be set.

Nick Hawkins: If, on Report, the hon. Gentleman were to table an amendment suggesting that that figure should be three quarters, I would hardly be likely to oppose it. I have explained that I chose two thirds because I wanted the amendment to require a clear majority of local authorities to agree. I anticipated that if I were to propose that all local authorities had to agree, the Minister might have said, ''Well, what if there was a maverick local authority? One authority could block the process, and that would be unfair.'' That is why I chose two thirds, but I would not have a problem if the hon. Gentleman were to suggest three quarters.
 My point is that, in an established constitutional settlement, we tinker with such things at our peril. In answer to his other point about the low turnouts in European elections—[Interruption.] I agree with the 
 sedentary, but very helpful comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East that turnout is so low because of the British people's huge dissatisfaction with the whole European process and the democratic deficit, and because they do not regard the European Parliament as being significant. 
 Every general election from the second world war to 1997 had a turnout of more than 70 per cent. The dramatic fall in the turnout for the 2001 general election was largely due to a general dissatisfaction with the Labour Government, and to people's belief that it would not matter a great deal whether they voted. There was not a huge engagement with politics. I am looking forward to hearing from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris)—I understand entirely why he cannot be with us today—who made a very powerful speech on Second Reading last Tuesday about the malign effect of the media in increasing cynicism about politics. That was also a significant factor in the lower turnout for the general election. 
 If we left the position alone but increased the opportunity for people to vote by post if they had good reason for doing so, we would not need a lot of this modernising nonsense. I hope that that deals with the point made by the hon. Member for North Tayside. 
 We feel strongly about amendments Nos. 16 and 18. As was said in a debate on another Bill on which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and I led for our respective parties, it is good to start a Committee with one of the most important points of substance. We are not starting with trivialities, because the first group of amendments on the first clause go to the heart of our concerns. I will listen with interest to the Minister, but I hope that despite the catastrophic defeat that the Government have already suffered this morning, he will be reasonable and listen to our genuine attempts to improve the Bill and to build in more safeguards.

Lindsay Hoyle: May I, as everyone else has done, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Benson? They are right to do so; it is great to see one of our colleagues from the north-west chairing this sitting.
 We have heard a lot from the hon. Member for Surrey Heath about why it should be a two-thirds majority, but that he is willing to change that to three quarters so that he can get through his views. We ought to be talking about the benefits of the pilot scheme. The local authority has a major role to play in the pilot scheme. As I pointed out in debate in the Chamber, the benefits that we have seen from pilot schemes in Chorley have been significant in increasing and franchising democracy.

Peter Duncan: If the benefits are so easily demonstrable and so obvious, is there any reason why two thirds of the local authorities in an area might not accept it being a pilot area?

Lindsay Hoyle: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments. It is important that he expresses his view, and expresses the way in which he is whipped into line
 by expressing support for a figure of two thirds without substantiating why it is important. I understand that he has to do that and that he is under pressure to speak in the debate. If he listens a little longer, he may be persuaded to come to a realisation of how we can franchise people. That is important; it is about franchising people and not excluding people. What is important is proving the case about pilot schemes and why they are so important.

John Robertson: Will my hon. Friend expand on the second example of a pilot in Chorley? His first speech was riveting but mainly concerned the first example, so perhaps he could expand on the second.

Lindsay Hoyle: The chief executive of Chorley borough council and returning officer for Chorley, Jeff Davies, and the senior election officer, Martin O'Loughlin, are among the experts and they talk to other authorities about the benefits of postal voting and what it can do to enfranchise people. What is important is getting people to ensure that they use their democratic right to vote.

Mark Lazarowicz: It would probably be of great benefit to the Committee to pay a visit to Chorley to see for ourselves. Could my hon. Friend enlighten the Committee as to whether there have been any requests from the chief executive of Chorley for the veto mechanism that the Conservative amendment seeks to put in place?

Lindsay Hoyle: I would welcome a visit by the Committee to the jewel in the crown and the bastion of democracy of the north-west. I know that you, Mr. Benton, have visited Chorley and know it quite well. You are aware of the democratic flag waving that we can do there, because of the huge turnout that we have seen thanks to pilot schemes. I would welcome such a visit.
 The local authority does not support the figure of a two-thirds majority. In fact, Chorley borough council is made up of a couple of independents, Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and Labour members, and they all stated categorically in the June election that they wished Chorley to be franchised with the pilot scheme. It is important that all those political parties are working together to pilot that scheme. 
 I have been asked to mention what happened in the second election of the pilot scheme in Chorley. It is important that we recognise the reason why local authority votes have been sinking so fast. We were getting less than 30 per cent., and in some cases less than 20 per cent. That is dangerous and it is not democracy. We needed to reverse that trend, and, to be fair, Chorley council was very brave. When the country was asked whether there were any volunteers for a pilot scheme, Chorley was there, flag-waving and putting its hand up. The question went to the full council, all the political parties were in agreement and everybody said, ''We believe that we ought to franchise the people of Chorley through a pilot scheme.''

Nick Hawkins: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that independent bodies such as the Electoral Reform Society, which sent us paperwork at the very last minute, are drawing to the Committee's attention the fact that even though experiments have so far shown that all-postal ballots may have increased turnout in some places, they have not done so in all? All-postal ballots are not a guarantee of much higher turnouts. The society points out that in a by-election in Lewisham that ended on 23 October, there was an increase of just 2 per cent., to 24 per cent., despite the fact that the ward was hotly contested and changed hands. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that Chorley's experience is not universal?

Lindsay Hoyle: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware of good examples of postal voting.

Bridget Prentice: That postal ballot took place in my constituency last Thursday. Although there was not a great change from the previous election in the number of people voting, there was an increase of more than 10 per cent. as a result of the postal ballot, compared with by-elections.

Lindsay Hoyle: I welcome that information and it is important that we hear it. People put about scare stories that there are no benefits, but we hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) that there are.
 The hon. Member for Surrey Heath's old constituency—Blackpool, South—had trials last time and there was a significant increase in votes. I know that he keeps in touch with old constituency; in fact, I read in the paper today that he was concerned that the Conservatives may move away from Blackpool. He has a keen interest in the north-west, so he ought to recognise that it is important that we franchise people. The best way to trial that is through a pilot scheme, and the north-west is the right place for one.

Pete Wishart: I enjoy hearing again about Chorley and the success of the pilot scheme, which we obviously welcome. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that we need the consent and co-operation of local authorities to make such schemes a success. [Interruption.] Unless the majority of local authorities in an electoral area co-operate, however, the success of the pilots will surely be put in danger.

Lindsay Hoyle: We must recognise that there is a definite will out there on the part of local authorities to ensure—[Interruption.]

Joe Benton: Order. The noise levels are getting quite high and it is difficult to hear. May I ask members of the Committee who must speak please to keep it sotto voce?

Lindsay Hoyle: I will try to speak a little louder if people cannot hear me. I am sorry that my voice cannot be heard—I know that I am a quietly spoken, shy and retiring person.
 Local authorities want to increase the number of people voting, which has dropped to dangerous levels, but the only way to do that and to prove the case is to have pilot schemes. The sooner we get on with that, the better. I rest my case.

David Heath: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chorley, who clearly feels that his constituency exemplifies all that is good in electoral practice. He may well be right, but we need to extend the search a little further to see what is happening. My view accords with the intervention of the hon. Member for North Tayside. Unless we have the full co-operation and enthusiastic participation of local authorities, pilots simply are not going to work. The big difference in terms of the pilot areas that have engaged in the schemes so far, such as Chorley and my district council area of South Somerset, is that they wanted to take part. They were keen to see whether there would be an effect on their local elections, and to discover what the consequences would be electorally and in terms of the operation's mechanics. That important point shows why it is valuable to have the amendments mentioned by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath.
 However, I have some minor criticisms of the hon. Gentleman's amendments, and I hope that he will forgive me because it is important that we explore them. My criticism of amendment No. 16 was referred to in part by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith in an intervention. There is a lack of specificity and definition in relation to ''local authorities''. What do we mean by that phrase? Do we mean all local authorities? The amendment does not specify ''relevant local authorities'', as defined in the Bill, so we must construe it as meaning all local authorities in the region, including parish councils in England, community councils in Wales and—I am sorry, but I have forgotten what the lowest tier of local authority in Scotland is called. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith might help me.

Mark Lazarowicz: We have a unitary system in Scotland. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a further anomaly for parts of the country that do not have a unitary system? Areas in which there are counties and districts would effectively have two veto votes, which would be even more undemocratic.

David Heath: That was my next point. Large parts of England have shire counties and district authorities that cover the same electorate. For that reason, there are problems with the proposal of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath.
 There is also the question of the population differential between a large borough authority and a small rural district council. Are those authorities to have an equal say in what happens? Having a straw poll of local authorities—however that poll is constructed—might not be the best way of approaching the problem. 
 Amendment No. 18 is concerned with having a proper consultation process with all of the local authorities. Had I written the amendment, I would 
 have included the phrase ''relevant local authorities'', to define those responsible for conducting elections in such areas.

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as I so often am, for the thorough way in which he is considering the matter. Does he agree that one difficulty that we both faced was incredible shortness of time? Second Reading was only last Tuesday, and we had so little time to draft our amendments that neither of us could claim that they are perfect. We both made as good a stab as we could. The pressure of time put on us and the various issues raised in connection with the programme motion led to the huge and enormously significant Government defeat on that motion.

David Heath: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that, as matters now transpire, we will have a little more time for the Committee, and I look forward to that eventuality. I accept that, like me, he produced amendments to a short time scale. I hope that he will accept that I am not criticising his draftsmanship in any way. I am simply saying that the detail of his amendment is not quite right, but that its sentiment should nevertheless be debated and endorsed.
 If the pilots are to be a success, we need to consult properly with those who will be charged with the responsibility of carrying them out: returning officers and local authorities. We must know the practicalities, and give those involved the opportunity to express any concerns that they might have. For instance, some issues were raised on Second Reading about the Scottish highlands and islands. Practical difficulties undoubtedly may arise in some of the remoter parts of Scotland, in terms of providing for the arrangements. The same may well apply in Wales and in the remoter parts of rural England—not least in my own constituency. I have every confidence that ballot papers will be returned marked ''eaten by snails'', as sometimes happens with post that is left in some of the wetter post boxes in my constituency. 
 There are practical difficulties that ought to be taken into account. If the process allows for consultation and parliamentary scrutiny of the outcome, we can move forward with the confidence that the issues are being addressed. If we impose a solution by diktat on large tracts of the country—that is what will happen if there are three regional pilot trials—without taking into account the views of local authorities and returning officers, that will be a recipe for disaster at some point. We should avoid that if at all possible, which is why I have doubts about amendment No. 16. However, I can see the merit in amendment No. 18.

Teddy Taylor: I want to make two brief points. First, I hope that hon. Members will sincerely ask themselves what the argument is against consulting local authorities. Something dramatic is to happen that will involve a great deal of expenditure; surely it is only fair and reasonable that local authorities be consulted.
 A great deal of strange propaganda is going around about the new form of voting. We have heard several references to Lewisham, which I know a bit about. There was a wonderful all-postal scheme and a fantastic campaign, during which many people expressed strong opinions. Voting took place very recently—on 23 October—but how many hon. Members know what the final voting figure was? Was it 80 per cent. or 70 per cent.? The fact is that despite all the effort and expenditure, the ballot turnout was 24 per cent.

Lindsay Hoyle: The benefit of the Chorley experience was that we greatly exceeded the 60 per cent. mark. Anyone would recognise that as a significant improvement, given that in some cases, turnout was below 30 per cent.

Teddy Taylor: Just because that happens in Chorley, it does not mean that it will happen everywhere. If it is such a great idea, what is wrong with asking local authorities? I make that point to Labour Members in particular, who are meant to believe in democracy. They are meant to believe that the people have the right to decide, so what is wrong with asking them?

Nick Hawkins: As my hon. Friend knows, I strongly agree. Does he recognise that we have to take seriously what the Electoral Reform Society says? It has volunteered the information about Lewisham, which I did not know about until I opened my post this morning. However, I was not entirely surprised by it, because I know the area very well. My wife stood for the council during the 1980s, and there were low turnouts then; but they were higher than now, and under the traditional voting system. The collapse in the voting system will not be reversed just by postal experiments.

Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend is right. I know Lewisham very well and I was astonished at the very low poll, despite all the efforts made. Despite the all-postal ballot, much expenditure, a lot of people rushing around and lots of exciting campaigns, turnout was 24 per cent.—that is the issue. We are doing such daft things because people are obsessed with the 25 per cent. turnout for the European election. The sad fact is that if the European Parliament were closed tomorrow, the majority of people would not realise, apart from the taxi drivers of Strasbourg.
 Our rather pathetic attempt to boost voting artificially by imposing rules on councils, whether they want them or not, is just ridiculous. Why would councils not want to participate? I mentioned Southend, which I live in and represent. It has an appalling, dreadful problem with overcrowding and bad housing. A huge number of houses are in multiple occupation, and it is very difficult to know from day to day who actually lives in them. Lots of people move in and out of the many so-called hotels, including the Palace hotel, which is neither a palace nor a hotel. Quite honestly, trying to deliver ballot papers in such areas is difficult. 
 I do not know what view others have, but my impression is that local councils have quite enough to do. These exciting new schemes, which involve a great deal of expenditure and time, are the last thing in the world that they want to get involved in. If they are such a great idea, what is wrong with asking about them? 
 I hope that, before the vote on the amendment, hon. Members will consider what the Bill actually does. It allows the Secretary of State to order innovative voting methods to be piloted in one or more European parliamentary electoral regions in the 2004 European parliamentary elections and in local elections combined with European elections. Basically, he has the power to order that such pilots take place anywhere he wants. The Bill does not specify the regions where pilots will be held, but states that London and Gibraltar will be excluded, as will Northern Ireland. That is obvious, because voting arrangements in Northern Ireland tend to be special, as I learned during my visits there. 
 Finally, the Bill does not specify the types of innovative voting to be carried out in each region. The regions and the voting methods will be for the Secretary of State to decide. Local councils could have any form of voting applied to them, whether they liked it or not. It could be one of the ridiculous systems that we have discussed, which the Electoral Reform Society has pointed out could cost more than £20 per vote. Frankly, the last thing in the world that I want is to introduce exciting measures without the support of local councils. 
 Simply voting on the amendment along party lines—Labour voting one way and Conservatives voting the other—makes one wonder what the point is of having Committees. Surely, the Labour party should stand for the principle of people having the right to decide for themselves.

Nick Hawkins: Is my hon. Friend concerned about the way in which Committees are set up? When Labour Back Benchers feel strongly enough about such matters to express views on Second Reading that are contrary to established Government policy, they are mysteriously absent from the Committee. I am thinking in particular of the independent views that were expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson). He made a tremendously powerful speech that certainly qualified him, by right, for a place on the Committee, but he is not here because his views are not in line with Government policy.

Teddy Taylor: Yes, I know the Glasgow, Pollock constituency well. It is a very complex constituency. I note that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart was meant to be here but is not.
 My hon. Friend is absolutely right that Governments tend to put the appropriate people on Committees. They may simply pick stooges who will do what they are told. Looking around, I see at least three Labour Members whom I regard as independent-minded people. I hope that they will show some independence on this vote. We are simply 
 asking that local councils be asked whether they want the pilot. I cannot see anything wrong with that. In this Committee, we have at least three Labour Members who are respectable, decent and honourable. I hope that they will support the amendment. It would be scandalous and shocking to introduce a new system of voting that is complex and costly, that may prove to be an utter nonsense and to achieve nothing, as we have seen, without at least consulting local councils. If we force them to take that on without their agreement, we will make nonsense of democracy. 
 I am well aware that all parties do bad things to force through legislation. I often tried to persuade even the Conservatives, who were in power in the bad old days when things were not as good as they are now. We pushed through foolish European Union legislation, which we have lived to regret. I hope that we have learned our lesson, but I am not here to talk about that. 
 Given that the whole project could be a ghastly flop, we should consult local councils before imposing it on them, particularly if they have special problems with it, such as the distribution of voting papers. If we force it on to an area and there is a 24 per cent. turnout, we will have spent a huge amount of money, forced local councils to spend a lot of time and effort on it and achieved absolutely nothing.

Crispin Blunt: I note that the Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland, but Northern Ireland is important because its experiences provide support for the argument for local consultation.
 I sat in the Committee that scrutinised the Northern Ireland (Elections) Bill, representing Her Majesty's Opposition in those halcyon days when I was on the Front Bench. During the passage of the legislation, the scale of the abuse of the electoral system in constituencies in the west of Northern Ireland became clear. Surprise, surprise, there was a substantial Sinn Fein vote in those areas, and it was found that up to five times as many postal and proxy ballots had been registered there compared with the norm. 
 Allegations were made that postmen were followed when the ballots were delivered, and that people received a little visit inviting them to accept some help with the casting of their ballot. Such intimidation ensured that people voted in the way that was perceived to be right and to be in the interests of their community. The amount of registered postal votes and proxy votes in those constituencies provided inescapable evidence that something was up. 
 It is very important to ensure that local consultation takes place before the legislation is enacted. The hon. Member for Chorley has left the sitting, but I can take the north-west as an example. It is highly regrettable that the British National party has had occasional successes in local council elections there. That party has flirted with political violence, and whether causing it itself or having violence imposed upon it by opponents, the evidence is there for people to see. 
 The Great Britain part of the United Kingdom is not immune from events such as have been seen in Northern Ireland. We must be careful about introducing new ballot schemes to encourage more people to vote that devalue the secrecy of the ballot. If 
 people are to take part in elections, they should make the effort to go to the polling station to vote. The cost of extending the franchise and encouraging more people to vote is, potentially, the validity of the electoral process. 
 The evidence is there in Northern Ireland, and local consultation is essential. If we see the rise of parties that are unscrupulous about how they secure votes, the Government need feedback about what is happening on the ground and about what measures would be appropriate in certain circumstances. 
 I hope that the Minister will address those points. The fact that Great Britain is fortunate enough not to encounter those problems today does not mean that it will not encounter them in the future. The system that we introduce should at least foresee a time when the more unscrupulous parties—as opposed to the decent and honest parties that are represented in Committee today—take part in the electoral process on a significant scale.

David Wilshire: May I apologise to the Committee and to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath, who speaks for the Opposition, for the fact that I have not been present throughout the whole sitting? There are occasions in Committee when the usual channels must talk to each other. I hope that I do not repeat anything that has been said, and I am sure that I will be stopped if I do.
 I want to clarify a couple of points, and I will address my comments to amendment No. 18, not amendment No. 16. I suspect that the Minister will oppose amendment No. 18, and I will be interested to hear his reasons for doing that. We could perhaps have worked better and differently had we had the time to discuss the amendments properly, because the Minister might be persuaded to agree to consultation with local authorities but might fight shy of having to have a debate in both Houses. I am only speculating that there may be a distinction between the two points. Will the Minister address that? If a separate amendment were introduced on Report to provide for consultation with local authorities but not a debate in both Houses, would that appeal to the Government? 
 If the Government, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats or anybody else seriously want to devolve power to local government and the regions, the electoral process is fundamental. I have no difficulty with wanting to increase turnouts at European elections, but I am just as keen to encourage better turnouts in parish elections in England. We should involve all local authorities at every level. The argument was advanced that we should consult at least the local authorities that run the elections. I do not agree, as we should not draw that distinction. The debate is not only about the administrative convenience or cost of running an election differently, but about the democratic process. English county councils that are not running such elections and English town or parish councils, which will never run 
 such elections, all have the same right to be consulted. We must consider the turnouts at their elections, as well as those at the European elections. 
 I am wholly supportive of the principle, as I believe that consultation never did anyone any harm. I have deliberately concentrated on England because I understand the English situation. I am sure the principle applies to Scotland and Wales, but I do not understand their local government as I perhaps should. However, all local authorities in England, of whatever size or significance and whether or not they are involved in running elections, are just as involved in wanting democracy to be strengthened.

Neil Turner: The hon. Gentleman is talking about consultation, but my understanding of the amendment is that it is not about consulting local authorities, but about giving them a power of veto. Does he not agree that that is an entirely different matter?

David Wilshire: To me, amendment No. 18 does not say anything other than that local authorities would have the opportunity to consider the views and debate the matter. Amendment No. 18 says nothing about a veto, although amendment No. 16 may be different. However, I deliberately said at the outset that I was addressing my comments to amendment No. 18. The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to stray into amendment No. 16, and if he has the patience to listen to me elaborating on that for a little while, I will oblige him. However, I believe that amendment No. 18 contains an important issue on which there is no party political divide, as both sides of the Committee support the principle of consultation.
 I flagged up the possibility that involving both Houses of Parliament might be a step too far for the Government, although I have not consulted my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath and I am not speaking on behalf of the official Opposition in saying that we could perhaps row back on that, if it would ensure that at least some extra consultation is included. 
 When we come to vote on the amendments, as I am sure that we will, I hope that the Government Members who are proud to have open minds and have listened to this convincing debate will see the wisdom of our comments and will prevail on the usual channels to avoid another defeat by getting the Minister to agree with us.

Christopher Leslie: It has been an interesting and eventful morning. It has been a privilege to have the opportunity to serve on this Committee, although I have probably spoken for only two minutes. I urge the Committee to resist amendments Nos. 16 and 18, for reasons that I will try to explain in relatively short order.
 Amendment No. 16 would provide that two thirds of local authorities must not only be consulted but must give their consent for the piloting to occur in their area. That is quite different from the issues already discussed by Opposition Members about the 
 importance of consultation. Of course it is important to have consultation. Hon. Members from both sides have been entirely fair to raise the issue of the need for proper dialogue with local government, not least because local authorities are important players in the operation of innovative voting mechanisms. However, to give local authorities a veto over whether pilots should occur is unnecessary and the wrong approach to take. 
 Ample consultation is already under way. The independent Electoral Commission is undertaking a consultation exercise. It is speaking to local government and discussing their needs and capabilities. Their views are being taken into account. In fact the Electoral Commission is already sensitive to these issues: in our request to the commission to undertake a consultation we specifically asked it to look at 
''the experience of local authorities in holding pilots . . . the experience of the Regional Returning Officers and . . . the ability of other agencies to deliver''. 
There is ample scope within that consultation process for local authorities' views to emerge and to be brought to the attention of the Electoral Commission. 
 The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department for Constitutional Affairs are undertaking a separate consultation exercise with local authorities to look into the detailed operations—the mechanics—of the piloting orders as they emerge and before they are drafted. That is a thorough exercise to consider the nuts and bolts of how innovative voting mechanisms might affect local government. 
 The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome pointed out a number of drafting deficiencies, but I will not rely on those to rebut amendment No. 16. I do not believe that a veto for local authorities is appropriate. We should scale up the pilots from a local level to a regional and national level, so we need to change the framework in which we examine piloting. Small pockets within a wider area should not be able to opt out of a pilot arrangement. That is why we need to ensure that we can proceed in a comprehensive way. It is also not right to give local government a veto on the conduct of European parliamentary elections, which are not entirely within the local authority remit.

Nick Hawkins: Surely the Minister must recognise that local authorities should have a say, even in the conduct of European elections, because the chief executive or any appointed deputy will be the returning officer. Whether it is a European election, a local election or a general election, the chief executive is responsible for all the administrative work. I see the Minister nodding at that. Whatever election it may be, local authorities will have to do the work, spend the money and make the arrangements, so they must be involved in decisions about changing the process.

Christopher Leslie: There is a difference between being involved or having a say and having a veto over whether a pilot should proceed. No one would want to exclude the possibility of dialogue or consultation with local government. That is precisely why we have made ample provision for debate and exchanges of views
 with local authorities about this process. At the end of the day we need to ensure that we can proceed with this wider scale piloting. That is why we have made these proposals.
 Amendment No. 18 proposes a full parliamentary debate on the views of every single local authority. The Opposition is being excessive in making such a proposal. Hon. Members will already know from experience that we must have another opportunity to debate the main order provided for in the Bill. The affirmative procedure for the main order, as set out in clause 1, will allow Parliament another opportunity in due course to scrutinise the principles of the pilots proposed. There will therefore be ample opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny, so amendment No. 18 is largely unnecessary. I have answered most of the points raised by the Committee, and I urge it to resist the amendment.

Nick Hawkins: I congratulate the Minister on his insouciance. He dismissed the Committee's proceedings this morning as just a little more exciting than normal. However, it is not every day that the Government suffer such a catastrophic defeat as they did on the programme motion. The Minister managed to dismiss it as a little local difficulty, but the fact that as eminent a person as the Government Deputy Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), was seen rushing to the Committee Corridor after the Government's defeat shows that the Minister was not as relaxed as he pretends to be.
 Part of the Minister's response reinforces our concerns, not only in respect of amendments Nos. 16 and 18, but in respect of issues relating to the Government's defeat on the programme motion. The Minister admits that the Electoral Commission is holding consultations now. In a little while, we will come to the point in the Bill when the Government will say that it does not matter whether consultation happens before the Bill becomes an Act or afterwards—that is an extraordinary provision. 
 The Government are rushing through this legislation with indecent haste because they must get it through before the Electoral Commission has had its consultation. Surely, it would be much better if we waited for the consultation. It is precisely because the Government are rushing the legislation through before the commission has had its own consultation that we want protection in the Bill. We want local authorities to be consulted. We are not talking about a veto by one single local authority, but about a proportion of local authorities, if they are not satisfied, being able to prevent the legislation proceeding to a pilot. If, in place of amendment No. 16, the Government tabled their own amendment on Report—one that refers to a simple majority if they do not like a two-thirds majority—I could live with that. As the hon. Member for North Tayside suggested, perhaps we could have a three-quarters majority. It should be a majority of the local authorities in the area affected, because they will have to do the work.

Neil Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins: I shall not give way because I want to be brief. Given the helpful comment by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that the wording of the amendment might not be perfect, I shall want to press amendment No. 18 to a division.
 Amendment negatived.

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Benton, I think that the record will show that earlier this morning, in a fit of enthusiasm, I suggested that the usual channels had not consulted me about the four sittings. My rush of blood to the head was because of the excitement of the moment; I intended to say that the usual channels had not listened to my objections. I would like to withdraw what I said earlier and apologise, because the usual channels on the Government's side are not allowed to join in these debates, otherwise I am sure they would have complained at the time.

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in
clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out paragraph (b).

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 22, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 6, leave out 'must' and insert 'may'.

Nick Hawkins: Amendment No. 17 is designed to delete clause 1(1)(b), and grouped with it is amendment No. 22 to clause 2, which is designed to change the word ''must'' to ''may''. Amendment No. 17 is probing.
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
Adjourned till Thursday 30 October at half-past Nine o'clock.